Warning, story spoilers for a story over two hundred years old that we all know

Oh my God, it’s from The Independent! I thought it was some Murican pastor married to three of his cousins but no.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/frankenstein-review-guillermo-del-toro-venice-b2816625.html

And when you read OP you probably figure that it was out of context, and yes, he does actually know that this is perhaps more faithful to the novel (his argument seems to be that since the schlocky versions exist you must continue them).

Immediately, he goes off the rails again with this nonsense:

Isaac’s performance is mannered and uneven. The film quotes Byron, and you half expect the actor to portray Victor as a dashing and poetic figure. Instead, in the scenes when Victor is the rebel scientist, scandalising Edinburgh’s medical establishment with his “galvanic” experiments, he is strangely sinister. As he rolls his eyeballs, fidgets and jumps around, it’s very hard to muster much sympathy for him.

Frankenstein is raising the dead! He is a foul necromancer defying God and Nature. Bit like Byron really.

Then he continues with this bit

Isaac registers much more strongly after he is brought low, when he is playing Victor as a broken and despairing man with a prosthetic leg, on his grim Arctic quest to destroy his own creation.

All my homies HATE character development. In the beginning of the movie he was this way but at the end, after going through a ton stuff and it’s years later, he’s some other way!? I’m sorry, this really breaks my immersion.